#1 Who ever said blocking the lane purposely was mature? Not sure why that's an issue. It's basically my way of getting my way, which is as childish as can be. The thing you guys aren't getting is that I think it's the right thing to do, and don't give a shit if it seems childish. (In case you haven't noticed, I'm not the type who really cares what people think of me.)

#2 If you're cruising at 85, and everyone else is cruising at 80, then it's pretty safe and I have no problem. If you're cruising at 85 and everyone else is cruising at 70, then it's not safe, and that's when I start to blockade.

#3 Are we seriously making the argument that road rage is understandable when people blockade the left lane, just because insurance companies say it's the number one cause of road rage incidents? That's ass backwards. The conclusion that should be drawn from that is if you feel yourself getting enraged by someone blockading the left lane, you should realize the situation you're in and chill the eff out.

#4 I like my chances in a head to head, in-person confrontation at a rest stop over being on the road with some guy doing 95 while the rest of us are going 75. I'm a pretty sizable guy and was a NCAA D-1 varsity athlete. Most people when they see me would rather not get to the physical stage, so I've just gotten my point across firmly but with respect. Yet ready to take it to the next level if need be. I guess there's always the chance I run across a guy with a gun or something, but like I said, I think those odds are lower than the danger an extreme speedster amongst sane drivers poses.

#5 After all this, I should note that if you're on I95 doing 85 while everyone else is doing 80, I might shake my head and say what the eff's the hurry, but that's not going to set me off. What gets me are the extreme cases, and that's when I start effing with people. It doesn't happen all that often.

As to your first point, it just seems strange coming from you. You seem like a pretty straight thinking, logical person. This kind of behavior seems dumb (and as you said- childish), so it's just kind of off in this case, IMO. You may think it's the right thing to do. But again, what do you think police officers (you know, the guys who actually do this stuff professionally for a living) would say about your pseudo-traffic cop vigilante "justice?"

As to your second point, you "start to blockade" at the 15mph over the speed limit mark. You think it's right to take matters into your own hands and pull maneuvers that are potentially much more dangerous than just letting the 85mph guy just go on his way? I think it's strangely convenient how you are just ignoring the very valid arguments that have been made against your behavior. It's not like you to avoid a strong argument.

As to your third point, I think it is understandable that road-rage is caused by people blocking the left lane. It doesn't mean it's excusable, but certainly understandable. And the fact that insurance companies have proof that your "blockades" do far more harm than good should tell you something. I'd hope so anyway.

As to your fourth point, I hear you. People don't generally try to mess with me either, and I'm not one for backing down. That said, I don't go out looking for it either. That kind of behavior for me pretty much faded after my early 20's. Let me ask you, if you confronted some guy at a rest stop who you could clearly handle, and without getting physical he totally blew you off and laughed in your face, pretty much telling you to kiss his ass, then what?? I'm just asking, because if someone (big, small or otherwise) confronted me in that manner, that's how I would react. It would pretty much go like this: "Did you really just follow me in here to bitch at me about my speedometer? Ha! Mind your business. For real."

Look Schneed, I'm not the type of driver you would ever pull this with, because I'm not reckless at all, and I rarely push it more than 10mph over. In fact, I have a perfect driving record.

But I do think your behavior is totally counterproductive, and IMO what you're doing is actually more dangerous than just worrying about yourself and being a defensive driver. Daseal was right. You're on the offensive. It reeks of bully-ish behavior. No disrespect intended, and we can agree to disagree. Just my opinon.

As to your first point, it just seems strange coming from you. You seem like a pretty straight thinking, logical person. This kind of behavior seems dumb (and as you said- childish), so it's just kind of off in this case, IMO. You may think it's the right thing to do. But again, what do you think police officers (you know, the guys who actually do this stuff professionally for a living) would say about your pseudo-traffic cop vigilante "justice?"

As to your second point, you "start to blockade" at the 15mph over the speed limit mark. You think it's right to take matters into your own hands and pull maneuvers that are potentially much more dangerous than just letting the 85mph guy just go on his way? I think it's strangely convenient how you are just ignoring the very valid arguments that have been made against your behavior. It's not like you to avoid a strong argument.

As to your third point, I think it is understandable that road-rage is caused by people blocking the left lane. It doesn't mean it's excusable, but certainly understandable. And the fact that insurance companies have proof that your "blockades" do far more harm than good should tell you something. I'd hope so anyway.

As to your fourth point, I hear you. People don't generally try to mess with me either, and I'm not one for backing down. That said, I don't go out looking for it either. That kind of behavior for me pretty much faded after my early 20's. Let me ask you, if you confronted some guy at a rest stop who you could clearly handle, and without getting physical he totally blew you off and laughed in your face, pretty much telling you to kiss his ass, then what?? I'm just asking, because if someone (big, small or otherwise) confronted me in that manner, that's how I would react. It would pretty much go like this: "Did you really just follow me in here to bitch at me about my speedometer? Ha! Mind your business. For real."

Look Schneed, I'm not the type of driver you would ever pull this with, because I'm not reckless at all, and I rarely push it more than 10mph over. In fact, I have a perfect driving record.

But I do think your behavior is totally counterproductive, and IMO what you're doing is actually more dangerous than just worrying about yourself and being a defensive driver. Daseal was right. You're on the offensive. It reeks of bully-ish behavior. No disrespect intended, and we can agree to disagree. Just my opinon.

A number of quarrels with your points. You're making a lot of assumptions here, assumptions which would naturally lead you to believe I'm being illogical. Let me clear it up for you, you might see more logic:

You seem to think I'm pulling some sort of "dangerous maneuver." It's really quite simple and not dangerous at all. I usually cruise in the left lane. If someone comes up at a sane rate seeking to pass, I move over and let them by. If someone comes up at a reckless rate or tails me, I stay right where I am and I match speeds with the car to my right so he has few options to get around. Ultimately, all I'm doing is going a constant speed. My eyes are faced forward, I'm at 10 & 2, and I'm ignoring the guy behind me. There's no way that can be construed as dangerous, unless you actually want to blame me for the angry response I get from the bozo behind me. And that would be absurd.

You'll never see me swerve from one lane to the next in order to try one of these blockades. It would make no sense to take on more risk myself in order to reduce the risk posed by the bozos on the road.

Another quarrel, who said the insurance companies have proof that blockades do more harm than good? You're extrapolating that from the point that "people sitting in the left lane is the #1 cause of road rage." Which I'm not even willing to blindly accept, by the way, without seeing proof, and furthermore I find it irrelevant because the emotional reaction by the road-rage-ee is the proximate cause of any accident. Just because someone gets pissed off doesn't mean they're excused of responsibility for their own actions. And like I said, I don't buy that crappy stat anyway, you're going to have to prove it to me. I would venture to guess that someone going 95+ MPH without road rage is more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than someone road raging while he's stuck behind a guy going 75. There is logic there: speed reduces the margin of error and is a greater factor in causing accidents than angry responses at a slower speed.

So until you bring me something other than saying "I think a cop would say this", or naming some lame anecdotal insurance industry line without a link to back it up, then I think you're the one without the cogent, logical argument.

Let me ask you, if you confronted some guy at a rest stop who you could clearly handle, and without getting physical he totally blew you off and laughed in your face, pretty much telling you to kiss his ass, then what?? I'm just asking, because if someone (big, small or otherwise) confronted me in that manner, that's how I would react. It would pretty much go like this: "Did you really just follow me in here to bitch at me about my speedometer? Ha! Mind your business. For real."

This is kind of off the topic of the thread, but I can kind of be a serious asshole when I want to (in case you hadn't noticed, LOL), and my hypothetical response would be to follow the guy into the bathroom and continue talking to him until he no longer could stand it and ultimately throws the first punch.

Ultimately you're right, I can't actually stop a guy from speeding. He could blow me off and get right back on the highway and get right back up to 95.

But it's neither here nor there because it's never happened. I've actually said something to people about speeding two times in my life. One time it was a guy and his family going on vacation, I saw them at the table at Burger King and said hey I was behind you for a while there and you were speeding and weaving pretty dangerously. His wife immediately got all over his case, she clearly didn't appreciate his speeding, and I had to say no more, she took it from there.

Another time I saw some douche in a beamer (nothing against beamers, just douches) a few years older than me and told him hey you should chill out on the roads. He ignored me, but we got back on the road at the same time and he wasn't going fast anymore. I guess sometimes all it takes is saying something. I mean when I said "confront", that didn't mean physically threaten. It meant verbally confront.

I'm not sure if being a passive aggressive road rager is any more productive than the dick driving 90 and riding everyone's ass. I mean is it really worth it Schneed? What happens when you come across with the one wacko with a weapon?

I'm not sure if being a passive aggressive road rager is any more productive than the dick driving 90 and riding everyone's ass. I mean is it really worth it Schneed? What happens when you come across with the one wacko with a weapon?

I hear that, and forgive me for repeating myself, but I think the odds of me coming across one of those crazies with a gun are a lot lower than the odds that someone going 95 will cause an accident.

The media tends to sensationalize those road rage stories where a dude tracks another dude down and shoots him at a red light in front of his wife and kids. Yes they happen, but not nearly as often as the media makes you believe.

But every day you have accidents from people making some sort of mistake on the road. The greater the speed, the greater the chance of mistake, and the greater the consequence (death).

I mean look at Adenhart. You have an asshole driving drunk, thereby reducing his margin of error, and what happens. Now that is totally NOT the same thing as driving 95, driving 95 sober is a lot less dangerous than driving drunk at any speed. But you get the point. Anything that reduces the margin of error on the road is irresponsible behavior.

I genuinely think that what I do with the left lane squat reduces risk to all drivers around me.

A number of quarrels with your points. You're making a lot of assumptions here, assumptions which would naturally lead you to believe I'm being illogical. Let me clear it up for you, you might see more logic:

You seem to think I'm pulling some sort of "dangerous maneuver." It's really quite simple and not dangerous at all. I usually cruise in the left lane. If someone comes up at a sane rate seeking to pass, I move over and let them by. If someone comes up at a reckless rate or tails me, I stay right where I am and I match speeds with the car to my right so he has few options to get around. Ultimately, all I'm doing is going a constant speed. My eyes are faced forward, I'm at 10 & 2, and I'm ignoring the guy behind me. There's no way that can be construed as dangerous, unless you actually want to blame me for the angry response I get from the bozo behind me. And that would be absurd.

You'll never see me swerve from one lane to the next in order to try one of these blockades. It would make no sense to take on more risk myself in order to reduce the risk posed by the bozos on the road.

Another quarrel, who said the insurance companies have proof that blockades do more harm than good? You're extrapolating that from the point that "people sitting in the left lane is the #1 cause of road rage." Which I'm not even willing to blindly accept, by the way, without seeing proof, and furthermore I find it irrelevant because the emotional reaction by the road-rage-ee is the proximate cause of any accident. Just because someone gets pissed off doesn't mean they're excused of responsibility for their own actions. And like I said, I don't buy that crappy stat anyway, you're going to have to prove it to me. I would venture to guess that someone going 95+ MPH without road rage is more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than someone road raging while he's stuck behind a guy going 75. There is logic there: speed reduces the margin of error and is a greater factor in causing accidents than angry responses at a slower speed.

So until you bring me something other than saying "I think a cop would say this", or naming some lame anecdotal insurance industry line without a link to back it up, then I think you're the one without the cogent, logical argument.

1st off, you never described your "procedures" for your "blockades" until now. I've got a quarrel with your method here. How on earth do you know how fast someone was going when they came up behind you as you were "cruising" in the left lane? While you were "10-2 with eyes forward" did you somehow manage to pace their speed to a tee? Please. You have no way of knowing if they were going 81 or 89. So I call bullshit on that one. And the fact that you "cruise" in the left lane with no intention of exceeding the speed limit implies the antagonistic, entitled nature of your behavior.

As far as the insurance company thing- I don't doubt Daseal, he's the one that came up with that. I'm not going to mine the web for insurance company surveys. It makes sense though. Let's say, hypothetically since it will make you happy, that blocking the fast lane is a big cause (not even the #1, just a big cause) of road rage. And it's pretty much a fact that road rage causes accidents. It's a simple equation really. What you're doing lends to road rage. You can say someone with a cool head going in a straight line at 90 is more likely to cause an accident than a pissed off rager at 75. That point can be argued just as easily as it can be agreed with.

You're out to provoke. And if what you're doing causes road rage, you just shrug your shoulders and say, "their reaction to my behavior is their problem."

This is kind of off the topic of the thread, but I can kind of be a serious asshole when I want to (in case you hadn't noticed, LOL), and my hypothetical response would be to follow the guy into the bathroom and continue talking to him until he no longer could stand it and ultimately throws the first punch.

Ultimately you're right, I can't actually stop a guy from speeding. He could blow me off and get right back on the highway and get right back up to 95.

But it's neither here nor there because it's never happened. I've actually said something to people about speeding two times in my life. One time it was a guy and his family going on vacation, I saw them at the table at Burger King and said hey I was behind you for a while there and you were speeding and weaving pretty dangerously. His wife immediately got all over his case, she clearly didn't appreciate his speeding, and I had to say no more, she took it from there.

Another time I saw some douche in a beamer (nothing against beamers, just douches) a few years older than me and told him hey you should chill out on the roads. He ignored me, but we got back on the road at the same time and he wasn't going fast anymore. I guess sometimes all it takes is saying something. I mean when I said "confront", that didn't mean physically threaten. It meant verbally confront.

Ok, I gotcha. The way you mentioned rest-stop confrontations earlier, coupled with the D-1 athlete I'm a big dude comments sort of painted a different picture.

But I see where you're coming from. It makes more sense the way you have laid it out here.

I hear that, and forgive me for repeating myself, but I think the odds of me coming across one of those crazies with a gun are a lot lower than the odds that someone going 95 will cause an accident.

The media tends to sensationalize those road rage stories where a dude tracks another dude down and shoots him at a red light in front of his wife and kids. Yes they happen, but not nearly as often as the media makes you believe.

But every day you have accidents from people making some sort of mistake on the road. The greater the speed, the greater the chance of mistake, and the greater the consequence (death).

I mean look at Adenhart. You have an asshole driving drunk, thereby reducing his margin of error, and what happens. Now that is totally NOT the same thing as driving 95, driving 95 sober is a lot less dangerous than driving drunk at any speed. But you get the point. Anything that reduces the margin of error on the road is irresponsible behavior.

I genuinely think that what I do with the left lane squat reduces risk to all drivers around me.

Yeah chances are low you'll run across that one wacko, but it just doesn't seem worth it to me. You're asking for trouble.

Schneed: If you come to Virginia, I suggest you don't practice this type of driving seeing as how it is illegal. Below is a link to a site that gives a synopsis of all states then a link to their actual driving laws. State "keep right" laws

Someone mentioned red light cameras earlier. I haven't read anything about them helping much at all. In fact, you can only be ticketed (at least in VA) if there's a sign saying that the intersection has cameras. And here's one of many studies showing that they actually cause more accidents than they prevent. I must say, one of my two accidents happened because I didn't run a red light. They actually got out of the car and said "Why didn't you just run it? Look what you did!" The light was fully red by then.

I'm looking for the insurance survey now. It was sent to our house a few years ago by our insurance company. I need to try to find it, and will look more. But Im already late for a family thing. Hope the left lane is clear!

1st off, you never described your "procedures" for your "blockades" until now. I've got a quarrel with your method here. How on earth do you know how fast someone was going when they came up behind you as you were "cruising" in the left lane? While you were "10-2 with eyes forward" did you somehow manage to pace their speed to a tee? Please. You have no way of knowing if they were going 81 or 89. So I call bullshit on that one. And the fact that you "cruise" in the left lane with no intention of exceeding the speed limit implies the antagonistic, entitled nature of your behavior.

As far as the insurance company thing- I don't doubt Daseal, he's the one that came up with that. I'm not going to mine the web for insurance company surveys. It makes sense though. Let's say, hypothetically since it will make you happy, that blocking the fast lane is a big cause (not even the #1, just a big cause) of road rage. And it's pretty much a fact that road rage causes accidents. It's a simple equation really. What you're doing lends to road rage. You can say someone with a cool head going in a straight line at 90 is more likely to cause an accident than a pissed off rager at 75. That point can be argued just as easily as it can be agreed with.

You're out to provoke. And if what you're doing causes road rage, you just shrug your shoulders and say, "their reaction to my behavior is their problem."

I have my eyes forward of course, safely. But like any driver I see who's coming in the rear view mirror, you don't have to keep your eyes fixed on the mirror to know when someone's coming up on you quickly. Ultimately it's subjective. If I see someone coming up on me at what appears to be a reasonable speed, I move over and let them by. If I see someone coming up quickly and getting right on my ass, then I don't let them by. It's not like I have a radar gun tracking their speed, I just threw the mph numbers out there as guidelines of sorts to give you a point of reference as to what I considered egregious speeding.

I fully admit what I'm doing is antagonistic. But I don't care because in my opinion it's a means to an end. I'm not letting people do crazy speeds on the roads because that poses more danger to other drivers than risking that the maniac behind me will rage at 75. If that makes me an entitled asshole, I'm fine with that.

As for the police, I don't care if they think what I'm doing is advisable. I just care if they think what I'm doing is legal. In Virginia Daseal is right, a cop could pull me over for what I'm doing. In PA there isn't really a law like that, at least it's much more vague. That's where I live.

But, even in VA, if a cop saw me blockading the left lane, and he saw the maniac behind me tailing me at 2 car lengths, he's more likely to pull him over instead of me. A cop will tend to go after the aggressive driver over the passive aggressive, and tend to go after the passive aggressive over the defensive. When it comes to legality, everything is relative when there's just one cop car on the scene.

I'm an odds guy, probability and statistics. My whole stance here is based upon a number of odds:

- You're more likely to get into an accident by calmly going 95 than you are by raging at 75.

- The odds of coming across a wacko with a gun on the roads are minute, despite what the media would lead you to believe.

- Blocking traffic is illegal in some states, but not more so than egregious speeding and tailgating. Slower speeds are safer, and hence cops will tend to pull over the more aggressive driver.

I have my eyes forward of course, safely. But like any driver I see who's coming in the rear view mirror, you don't have to keep your eyes fixed on the mirror to know when someone's coming up on you quickly. Ultimately it's subjective. If I see someone coming up on me at what appears to be a reasonable speed, I move over and let them by. If I see someone coming up quickly and getting right on my ass, then I don't let them by. It's not like I have a radar gun tracking their speed, I just threw the mph numbers out there as guidelines of sorts to give you a point of reference as to what I considered egregious speeding.

I fully admit what I'm doing is antagonistic. But I don't care because in my opinion it's a means to an end. I'm not letting people do crazy speeds on the roads because that poses more danger to other drivers than risking that the maniac behind me will rage at 75. If that makes me an entitled asshole, I'm fine with that.

As for the police, I don't care if they think what I'm doing is advisable. I just care if they think what I'm doing is legal. In Virginia Daseal is right, a cop could pull me over for what I'm doing. In PA there isn't really a law like that, at least it's much more vague. That's where I live.

But, even in VA, if a cop saw me blockading the left lane, and he saw the maniac behind me tailing me at 2 car lengths, he's more likely to pull him over instead of me. A cop will tend to go after the aggressive driver over the passive aggressive, and tend to go after the passive aggressive over the defensive. When it comes to legality, everything is relative when there's just one cop car on the scene.

I'm an odds guy, probability and statistics. My whole stance here is based upon a number of odds:

- You're more likely to get into an accident by calmly going 95 than you are by raging at 75.

- The odds of coming across a wacko with a gun on the roads are minute, despite what the media would lead you to believe.

- Blocking traffic is illegal in some states, but not more so than egregious speeding and tailgating. Slower speeds are safer, and hence cops will tend to pull over the more aggressive driver.

Cool. Well I guess we're pretty much in agreement then. The only thing I disagree with is the statement in bold. Like I said, I think that point can be argued either way.

Happy Easter everyone. I'm about to haul ass over to my mom's house for Easter brunch. I'm late, so I'm gonna drive fast and take chances.